# Difficulty and Aesthetic user experience **30 Aug 2024 at 18:43:17** #beautyinuse #draft - Nguyen seeks to show that the aesthetic core of games is that they elicit [[pleasing actions]] from their users. - We are not going as far as saying that this is the *core* of aesthetics of design, but we are definitely trying to say that it is a significant component. - However, here, we find a difficulty: Included in Nguyen’s account is his description of three harmonies, that is, three qualities of actions that games might elicit from users. They are: - Harmony of Solution - Harmony of Action - Harmony of Capacity - However, if we look at these components it does not seem as though they will be suitable for fleshing out [[the aesthetics]] of use. - Harmony of Solution: Nguyen is explicit that this is not agentive (not about something the player *does*), and is equally well appreciated by spectators. Example, a cool move in chess. - Harmony of capacity: Nguyen is explicit that this something the real world does not provide, and it is true, it is hard to think of examples when take pleasure in working tools to our capacity. - Harmony of Action: this is more promising, we might just be able to say that using tools is aesthetically pleasing in the same way that playing games or doing a ballet is. ## Harmony of action is not a perfect fit. - In games, the aim might well be arbritary, but with tool use it isn’t - Why is this important? Because it seems important to goal use that it is goal-directed. - How do we balance gracefulness etc. with goal pursuing? - In a game we might perform an action just because it is aesthetically pleasing. - [think of an example of a game in which there is a sudden moment in which one does something silly partly because the sensation of doing this action is pleasant] - perhaps hide and seek? - one way to make making coffee more enjoyable is to play a game of hide and seek while it is boiling, but a company couldn’t make the coffee machine more pleasurable to use by putting in extranious games of hide and seek. - in fact, any sort of arbritary interaction seems annoying: - Think about the difficulty you have using your phone in one hand, right now it is necessary, but you wouldn't want it arbitrary: - right now this is an irritation in user experience, - but one we can understand, as having to reach the top of the screen with one’s thumb is a necessary conequence of other choices which make the user experience of using a phone more convenient, such as being able to keep it in one’s pocket. - Now, imagine that [[Tim Apple]] had discovered many years ago a seamless way of making the top of one’s screen more reachable, but was making an aesthetic choice. for whatever reason, he arbritrarily wants users to reach for the top of their phones with their thumbs. He has made a design choice in order to elicit a particular action from his users. - If this were discovered, users would not stand for it. - on the other hand it does not seem right to say that users find [[easy actions]] aesthetically pleasing. The viola player’s [[aesthetic experience]] is not tied in with it being easy. ## [[The Problem]] of difficulty - this leads to a problem when considering [[the aesthetics]] of user experience. [[The problem]] of difficulty! > [!Problem of Difficulty] > What is [[the relationship between]] difficulty and user experience? - on the one hand we want to avoid arbritariness. - on the otherhand pure easyness does not seem right either. [[Design Paper –Plans, scraps, and brainstorms]] # Part 2 of the Introduction #draft #beautyinuse The aim of this [[first half]] of the paper is to show that user experience has a part to play in [[the aesthetics of design]], the aim of the second is to explore how we should understand aesthetically pleasing user experiences.  - Nguyen argues that the aesthetic core of games is their elicitation of [[pleasing actions]] from users. - [give some examples here] - The claim we are making here is weaker. we are proposing that [[the aesthetics of design]] has an agentive component, but not that this component is fundamental in any way. - Nevertheless, we might think that some aspects of the aspects of games might apply equally well for [[the aesthetics of design]]. - [Something about why an aesthetics of design should have something equivalent] - Are Nguyen's three harmonies applicable to design aesthetics? - The first two do not seem to be what we are looking for. - Harmony of Solution: not agentive, equally appreciated by spectators - Harmony of Capacity: difficult to apply to real-world tool use - Harmony of Action: potentially applicable to tool use aesthetics - This is where we might best apply typical aesthic words ‘grace’, ‘elegance’ etc. - However, ## Harmony of Action: Constraints in Games vs. Tool Use - A key difference between games and action is to do with goals: - Aims in games are typically ‘useless’ arbritary. - Using designed objects is almost always with a goal in mind. We (usually) use tools to perform their proper function. - Why is this difference so important.? - Because given that the aims of games are arbritary, this allows game designers a lot of freedom when scuplting the actions of players - [explain how, go into detail about how the rules and the aims of games sculpt agency in a way so as to allow for aesthetic actions (e.g. graceful, elegant, etc. actions] ### Brainstorm – is there really a difference here? #brainstorm - You are still goal directed in games, it’s just to a goal you know is useless - You are goal directed while using an artifact, it’s to a goal you believe is practical - Why would this lead to a difference in the character of aesthetic actions? - I was thinking about arbitariness: - Is it to do with there being an overall network of interlocking goals and practical uses? - striving, the striving itself is the point, you aim for the useless goal to enjoy the striving - think of rules, rules create friction for players, which lead to challenges -maybe friction doesn’t have to be there, but it is very common - Maybe this is the difference? - The actions of a user are only governed my the limits of the object rather than - ee - These experiences, while aesthetically pleasing, have no direct practical purpose outside the game context - In tool use: - Aims are goal-directed and practical, constraining the character of the actions they might want to elicit. - By constrain, I don’t mean reduce in possible number, I mean that any action must - Every action or interaction must contribute to the tool's primary function - Aesthetically pleasing actions must be intrinsically tied to the tool's purpose - No room for extraneous or arbitrary interactions that don't serve the tool's function - Need to balance efficiency, usability, and potential aesthetic qualities - Constrained by physical limitations, manufacturing processes, and cost considerations - The design of functional objects rarely, if ever, includes arbitrary actions: - Each element of a tool's design is typically justified by its contribution to the tool's purpose - Arbitrary interactions are generally viewed as impediments to efficient use - Users expect direct, purposeful interactions with tools, without extraneous steps - Examples: - A coffee maker's buttons directly relate to brewing functions - A smartphone's touchscreen gestures correspond to specific software actions - This fundamental difference stems from the goal-directed nature of tool use - The relationship between goal pursuit and potential aesthetic qualities in design requires further examination - Questions for consideration: - How can designers create aesthetically pleasing interactions within the strict constraints of functionality? - Can the very efficiency and purposefulness of a well-designed tool be a source of aesthetic pleasure? - How might the necessity of goal-directed design influence our understanding of aesthetic experiences in tool use? ## The Problem of Difficulty - Tension between avoiding arbitrariness and pure easiness in user experience - Example: phone design and one-handed use > [!Problem of Difficulty] > What is the relationship between difficulty and user experience? > [!Right???] > Current difficulty understood as a trade-off for overall convenience - Hypothetical arbitrary difficulty in design would be unacceptable to users - The relationship between ease of use and aesthetic appreciation presents a continuum: - At one end: Aesthetic experience not necessarily tied to ease of use - Example: viola player's aesthetic experience despite difficulty - At the other end: Easiness does not guarantee aesthetic appreciation - Mundane actions like calling an elevator or opening a drawer, while easy, rarely elicit aesthetic pleasure - These actions, despite their simplicity, do not typically engage users in a way that produces aesthetic satisfaction - The ease of these actions may contribute to their being overlooked or taken for granted